Score one for secularism?
23/1/19 21:21![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
arhalvaztrirjournal posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI mean now the USA will finally be overtly intervening with what will either spark a civil war (because to be crudely frank Maduro, like Chavez, has an army and the other guy doesn't and dictators always like shooting first knowing that as long as they say 'death to the Great Satan/American imperialism' a good portion of the US and global media will defend the shot up corpses as the price of progress and an inevitable good thing) or at least a massacre in an oil-rich state that isn't a mostly Muslim one.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46980913
To be equally fair, I've never understood the immense gulf in the global left's view of Hugo Chavez versus Nicolas Maduro. Ideologically Maduro is far the better choice for the Left, he's a genuine proletarian, and much more ideologically consistent. All Chavez proves is that anyone who defends him and hates Pinochet only hates a military coup not given the appropriate magic words, not a generals' putsch on principle.
In particular articles like this are the purest quality of horseshit, written to obfuscate that Chavez played as fast and loose with banning opposition as Maduro's done, and that both of them created a petrostate one-trick pony of an economy that has the same problem all the others do.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/05/maduro-chavez-170513145531916.html
To be fair some media coverage grudgingly recognizes a general who tried the same stunt Pinochet did wasn't a guy who created an 'economic miracle' but instead your average garden variety Santa Anna/Juan Peron wannabe who had a good PR firm that enabled the global Left to suddenly rally behind a military despot of the kind they otherwise usually savor their biggest volleys for whenever they're not focused monomaniacally on the USA.
http://theconversation.com/how-todays-crisis-in-venezuela-was-created-by-hugo-chavezs-revolutionary-plan-6147
Essentially, I think that Maduro's gotten a bum rap, and that on the basis of the sterling successes of prior US intervention that he may have actually achieved a miracle of his own because at the rate the USA's Reverse Midas Touch factor applies, odds are just as well he ends up making the entire northern part of South America his bitch, routing a pro-US coup by simple 1989 China methods, and becoming a more successful Fidel Castro with an oilfield. He's no better and no worse than Chavez, it's just that when Chavez died the myth that Venezuela was anything but a corrupt despotic petrodictatorship fell with him and his successor was never able to recreate it save in the eyes of the people making martyrs out of people like the House of Kim.
This is also the first time in a while that the USA has openly endorsed interference in Venezuelan politics, which is especially ironic given all the hullabaloo about Russian intervention. I think the real crime Putin did in the eyes of Americans was reminding us that we're not that different in the right hands from what we've done to other countries, and are no more immune to it than they are. When the USA does this to other countries, it's the god-given right of an empire to fuck with the sovereignty and electoral processes of other states, while God help the person who dares to treat the USA thus!
Naturally too I expect literally no major US media outlets will ever notice this bit of dissonance at any point in the whole mess here, and will take for granted that when the Colossus of the North clenches its Infinity Gauntlet that it is thus perfectly fulfilling its balanced geopolitical role, and not a case of imperialist hypocrisy to Biblical proportions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46980913
To be equally fair, I've never understood the immense gulf in the global left's view of Hugo Chavez versus Nicolas Maduro. Ideologically Maduro is far the better choice for the Left, he's a genuine proletarian, and much more ideologically consistent. All Chavez proves is that anyone who defends him and hates Pinochet only hates a military coup not given the appropriate magic words, not a generals' putsch on principle.
In particular articles like this are the purest quality of horseshit, written to obfuscate that Chavez played as fast and loose with banning opposition as Maduro's done, and that both of them created a petrostate one-trick pony of an economy that has the same problem all the others do.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/05/maduro-chavez-170513145531916.html
To be fair some media coverage grudgingly recognizes a general who tried the same stunt Pinochet did wasn't a guy who created an 'economic miracle' but instead your average garden variety Santa Anna/Juan Peron wannabe who had a good PR firm that enabled the global Left to suddenly rally behind a military despot of the kind they otherwise usually savor their biggest volleys for whenever they're not focused monomaniacally on the USA.
http://theconversation.com/how-todays-crisis-in-venezuela-was-created-by-hugo-chavezs-revolutionary-plan-6147
Essentially, I think that Maduro's gotten a bum rap, and that on the basis of the sterling successes of prior US intervention that he may have actually achieved a miracle of his own because at the rate the USA's Reverse Midas Touch factor applies, odds are just as well he ends up making the entire northern part of South America his bitch, routing a pro-US coup by simple 1989 China methods, and becoming a more successful Fidel Castro with an oilfield. He's no better and no worse than Chavez, it's just that when Chavez died the myth that Venezuela was anything but a corrupt despotic petrodictatorship fell with him and his successor was never able to recreate it save in the eyes of the people making martyrs out of people like the House of Kim.
This is also the first time in a while that the USA has openly endorsed interference in Venezuelan politics, which is especially ironic given all the hullabaloo about Russian intervention. I think the real crime Putin did in the eyes of Americans was reminding us that we're not that different in the right hands from what we've done to other countries, and are no more immune to it than they are. When the USA does this to other countries, it's the god-given right of an empire to fuck with the sovereignty and electoral processes of other states, while God help the person who dares to treat the USA thus!
Naturally too I expect literally no major US media outlets will ever notice this bit of dissonance at any point in the whole mess here, and will take for granted that when the Colossus of the North clenches its Infinity Gauntlet that it is thus perfectly fulfilling its balanced geopolitical role, and not a case of imperialist hypocrisy to Biblical proportions.
(no subject)
Date: 24/1/19 14:40 (UTC)Depends on what you mean by meddle. So far the US has rolled out the unwelcome mat for a few dozen Venezuelan officials and prevented the government of Venezuela from using the US financial system. I'd say neither of these violate Venezuelan sovereignty. A country can deny entry to whomever they want for whatever reason they want, it's their sovereign right. If Greece wants to deny entry to Macedonians because they don't like their country's name, it's not up to anyone else to say they can't. You can say it's stupid, but ultimately, it's Greece's decision. Same with the US financial system, the regulation of which is completely up to the US government, following whatever treaties the US government has signed up for.
As far as recognizing the opposition leader, the US is on pretty firm footing here as well. When the coup happened in Honduras, many of those same voices calling for the US to stop interfering in Venezuela were calling for the US to interfere in Honduras. As a member of the OAS, Honduras had some obligations to maintain a democratic form of government and they failed in this. The OAS suspended their membership and the US stopped providing development aid until new elections were called. Venezuela supported their suspension from the OAS and refused to recognize the government of Roberto Micheletti.
Well, Mr. Maduro has sidelined the National Assembly and the mandate from his original election has ended. The last election wasn't recognized as valid by the US, Canada, the EU, Australia, and most South American countries. As such, he's broken the democratic order in Venezuela. Of course, the elections were recognized as valid by Russia, China, Cuba, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Personally, I'd feel better taking the side of the former group rather than the latter when it comes to determining if an election is valid. As such, the US has a pretty good case to recognize Juan Guaido, the head of the National Assembly.
The US has absolutely no case to intervene militarily and I hope to God we don't. Outside of the Venezuelan opposition, Mr. Trump seems to be the only one who thinks this is a good idea. Unfortunately he has way too much authority in this matter. Venezuela might descend from an authoritarian dictatorship into a totalitarian dictatorship, and if it does, the US should absolutely stand by and limit our action to sending thoughts, prayers, and aid to the neighboring countries who will suffer most from the refugee crisis. It's not that this is a great course of action, it's just that anything else will be worse.
And would it ultimately backfire (again)?
Well, Venezuela has kinda gone to shit, largely due to it's own government's actions, and it's going to take a few decades to make a comeback. Venezuela could quickly get a lot better after some impossibly wise actions by the US and would still be in worse shape than it was a decade ago, which would lead many to say things have backfired. So, yeah, by any measure, the US will be in worse shape for intervening than for not doing so. The other option is to stand by and let the refugee crisis continue to build while Venezuelans starve and the government continues to refuse aid, saying there is no crisis.
(no subject)
Date: 24/1/19 15:39 (UTC)